ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2015
When Matching Fails: Understanding the Process of Matching Pain-Disability Treatment to Risk Profile.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of Questionnaire-Based Risk Profiling for Clients in a Workers' Compensation Environment: An Example in Australian Physiotherapy Practice.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA previous study (Bergbom et al. in J Occup Rehabil, 2013) showed that matching people at risk for pain-related disability to an intervention aimed at targeting their psychological problem profile did not, as hypothesized, improve the effect of the intervention. Methodological issues were suggested to explain the lack of differential effect. It was questioned whether the profiles used to allocate people to treatment were adequate. The aim of this study was to investigate if the risk profiles used to determine matching were sufficiently stable and valid by comparing the original profiles with profiles constructed using other methods.
methodsNinety-five people suffering musculoskeletal problems were screened, profiled, and matched to workplace based early interventions according to profiles. We studied stability and validity of their psychological risk profiles by investigating their concordance at different time points. People were originally assigned to profiles at inclusion, using a brief screening questionnaire. Then, they were profiled just before treatment start, using the same items. Finally, they were profiled again at treatment start, using extensive questionnaires. Concordance among the three sets of profiles was investigated.
resultsProfiles at inclusion were unstable until treatment start. People moved from profiles with more severe elevations in psychological variables, to a profile with moderate elevations. Concordance between the two means of profiling at treatment start was better; the brief screening and the extensive questionnaires assigned people to similar profiles.
conclusionsRisk level may be determined with brief instruments at an early stage of problem development. However, profiles and targets for interventions should be determined immediately prior to treatment start, preferably using full questionnaires.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.